Municipal Parking Lot is Not A Nuisance

A municipal parking lot is not a nuisance in and of itself, even if it is right next to your house. The Connecticut Appellate Court came to this conclusion in Perry v. Putnam, which will be officially released on February 2, 2016.

The Town of Putnam built an athletic facility on property adjoining plaintiffs’ residence. The town also constructed a parking lot to service the athletic facility. The parking lot is close to the plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs commenced an action that they thought sounded in nuisance based on all of the things that occur in parking lots next to town athletic facilities. Think teenagers, beer league softball players and truckers.

The trial court struck the complaint because it did not allege facts sufficient to state a nuisance claim. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The trial court struck that too, for the same reason. The Appellate Court affirmed.

Arguments on Appeal

Plaintiffs’ principal argument on appeal seems to have been that their amended complaint stated a nuisance claim because it alleged that the town engaged in a “positive act.” The positive act allegation is essential to a nuisance claim against a municipality. As the trial court noted, however, the other four elements of a nuisance claim also are essential to assert a nuisance cause of action against a municipality. A positive act allegation alone will not suffice.

Appellate Court’s Conclusions

The Appellate Court found lacking plaintiffs’ allegations relating to the positive act and two of the four other elements of the nuisance cause of action: (i) condition complained of has a natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury; and (ii) the use of the land was unreasonable and unlawful.

As for the positive act, the court noted that the requirement is that the municipality engages in a positive act that causes the alleged nuisance. In this case, it was not the municipality’s positive act in locating the parking lot near plaintiffs’ home that rankled them. Rather, the alleged nuisance stemmed from the positive acts of people using the parking lot, not from the location of the parking lot in and of itself. In other words, if no one was doing in the parking lot the things plaintiffs were complaining about, the lot would not have posed a problem.

The court also concluded that a parking lot does not have a natural tendency to create danger or inflict injury. The court noted that the lot was not like the town dump where fires routinely burned unattended or the landfill that leaked contaminants into the water supply.

The court further concluded that using town land for a parking lot to service an adjoining athletic facility was not unreasonable or unlawful. “Building a public parking lot is a quintessential public function, and … to be functional, a parking lot must be in proximity to the facilities it is intended to serve.” The placement of the lot on town land but in close proximity to plaintiffs’ home was not unreasonable or unlawful.

Impact

The case seems to have been an attempt at a new tactic for the “not in my backyard” opposition to public projects. It didn’t work. I don’t think it will work in the future, unless you’re talking about something that really is a nuisance, like a landfill.

About the Photo

I couldn’t find a picture of an outdoor parking lot. This was the next best thing.